MICROTRANS INFRATECH LIMITED,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 17(1) , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 187/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 February 2026AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's business involves sourcing from unregistered dealers, and its sales were not questioned. Considering the peculiar facts and divergent views on similar issues, the Tribunal decided to allow a lumpsum disallowance of 6% of the alleged bogus purchases, which amounts to Rs. 16,86,174/-. This decision is not to be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2020-21 pertains to the disallowance of purchases amounting to Rs.16,86,174/- from M/s. Pacific Enterprises, treated as bogus under section 69C. The appeal was decided ex-parte as the assessee did not appear. The assessee is in the business of supplying traffic control systems and LED lights for government projects.

What were the issues?

Whether the purchases sourced from M/s. Pacific Enterprises are bogus and thus disallowable under section 69C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 09.02.2026Pronounced: 09.02.2026

Date of hearing 09.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 09.02.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082537530(1), dated 12.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is according proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee presses for his sole substantive ground on merits challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating its purchases of Rs.16,86,174/- in AY 2020-21, sourced from the entity M/s. Pacific Enterprises as bogus ones under section 69C of the Act, in the assessment order dated 21.03.2025, and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

That being the case, both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned bogus purchases disallowance. I wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in the business of supplying traffic control systems, LED lights, and related infrastructure primarily for government projects all along wherein possibility of assessee sourcing its purchases from unregistered dealers per se could not be altogether ruled out as well. And that his corresponding sales have nowhere been questioned in both the lower proceedings. Various recent judicial precedents (2025) 173 taxmann.com 592 (Guj.) Ravjibhai Becharbhai Dhamelia vs. ACIT; (2024) 160 taxmann.com 110 (Bom) PCIT Vs. Hitesh Mody (HUF), (2024) 160 taxmann.com 93 (Del) PCIT Vs. Forum Sales (P) Ltd.;

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →